Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 10:14:03 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: -fnative-struct improves timings slightly. Message-ID: <20001114101403.E8970@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com References: <20001114133208 DOT 18986 DOT qmail AT web106 DOT yahoomail DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <20001114133208.18986.qmail@web106.yahoomail.com>; from earnie_boyd@yahoo.com on Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:32:08AM -0800 On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 05:32:08AM -0800, Earnie Boyd wrote: >--- Christopher Faylor wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:49:58AM -0800, Earnie Boyd wrote: >> >There's been talk about -fnative-struct switch on the MinGW list and I >> thought >> >I'd give it a try when building Cygwin. Here are the timings: >> > >> >Before -fnative-struct: >> > User time (seconds): 536.17 >> > System time (seconds): 593.31 >> > Percent of CPU this job got: 60% >> > Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 31:16.34 >> > >> >After -fnative-struct: >> > User time (seconds): 529.86 >> > System time (seconds): 469.90 >> > Percent of CPU this job got: 61% >> > Elapsed (wall clock) time (h:mm:ss or m:ss): 26:52.60 >> > >> >BTW, FYI, the discussion in MinGW suggests that -fnative-struct improves >> >intercompatibility with MSVC. >> >> This switch is not in the main gcc sources. Apparently it is one of >> the additions that Mumit made to "his" version of gcc. That's what >> we're using currently for cygwin but it's apt to disppear unless >> someone champions getting this into the main repository. >> > >A patch was supplied to GCC by Donn Terry of Interix.Com. See >http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/1999-06n/msg00702.html. I'm aware of that. The patch is not in the main gcc sources. That is my point. cgf